• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

Impressive depth of scientific understanding noted.
shows some basic understanding of biology, doesn't it? whereas when you attribute a point to a paper when the paper in question explicitly avoids commenting on your point, well... that's Nobel Prize material, that is.

Where are the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories?
to quote *you*: " 'beggers'(sic) can't be choosers" so go down that long, willy-nilly list of links *you* provided and figure it out for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I can't think of any sceintific "fad" that has had the longevity and impact of AGW, and it's not showing any sign of going out of fashion. If anything it's becoming more prominent more rapidly than ever (despite the best efforts of the shiny-hat brigade). That's not a scientific argument, but then I'm not a scientist. I'm having to make judgements on what I see and hear, like everybody else.

since the introduction of Darwin's theory there were some pernicious wrong ideas that persisted. their persistence had more to do with cultural norms (things like white people being smugly convinced of their own superiority). most of them eventually came out in the wash. for example, the notion that you could tell all about a person by the bumps on their skull. there were many attempts to make evolution progressive in the sense that the 'great chain of being' is, mainly because that flatters H. sapiens (us). and eugenics... another bad idea.

one that's less controversial but may or may not turn out to be a "fad" (perhaps an unfair characterization, especially considering the stuff i just listed) is string theory. i don't understand string theory AT ALL but i've talked to some physicists who've grumbled about it not being tested and all. so the string theory one is just gossip really.

but hopefully, you get the idea: idea take hold, and are widely accepted even by credible scientists that wash out in the long run (Couvier apparently bought into the skull measurement nonsense).

I've long concluded that AGW is going to have a material impact. It must have been fifteen years ago that I said "The next ten years will tell", and they told. It's happening all around us. I'm not often unequivocal because I do hate to be wrong, but in this case I'm comfortable. For what that's worth.

i did have that impression, more or less from the start, yes.
 
They conclude that the Arctic was warmer than now in the 6thCE? That seems rather unlikely unless we have a lot more Arctic warming to come.

This 1500 year cycle does not fit well with Scandinavian, Russian, or Icelandic history. Nor British history, for that matter. It may look cool on a graph but it doesn't measure up to the real world.

from the conclusion of the paper in question:
The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in
the new Tornetrask record: On decadal-to-century time-
scales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were
all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this
new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on
AD 1000.
 
That you will never see.
For newcomers, AGWrs claim that the physics about their pet theory is very sound.....CO2 have some properties that make it a "greenhouse gas".

But......... the real question is : Those properties are still in effect when CO2 is in a 1000 PPM dilusion (almost homeopatic) on air? And what happens when this CO2 is stored in large masses of water?

There are some other questions, and AGWrs have come with nice theories about this, but a controlled experiment we haven't see.

Argument from ignorance.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Please try this at home.
 
This was established over a century ago, 1896



http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

My bad, Arrhenius did the calculations. Tyndal did the experiment.

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is. Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For full explanation of the science, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

Way back in 1859.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.
 
My bad, Arrhenius did the calculations. Tyndal did the experiment.



Way back in 1859.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."

I'm mixing and matching here with my paraphrase of course but I am sure this line of thought has come up before and been made to look a little, shall we say...deficient. Now here it comes back round on the carouselle once more.
 
"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."
What would be really useful is if there was a planet we could study which was about the same size as Earth but whose atmsophere consisted almost entirely of carbon dioxide, so we could see how much effect it has on surface temperature on its own. Pity there isn't such a planet in the solar system.

Oh wait, there is ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. [...] The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
 
How does the quantity of infrared radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere directly from the sun compare to the resultant, reflected infrared radiation reemitted from the Earth?

How much would the infrared radiation coming directly from the sun contribute to the warming of the Earth if there was no secondary infrared reflected back from the atmosphere?

Wouldn't the build-up of 'greenhouse' gases reflect a tremendous amount of incident infrared radiation, and would this help counter the greenhouse effect to some degree?
 
Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago
 
Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

Hmm....is the million dollar challenge still running?
 
Quote:
Where are the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories?
to quote *you*: " 'beggers'(sic) can't be choosers" so go down that long, willy-nilly list of links *you* provided and figure it out for yourself.

Okay, you've asserted that I posted lists containing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but when asked where they are, you duck and dodge.

A reasonable conclusion is that you just made it up.
 
Last edited:
since the introduction of Darwin's theory there were some pernicious wrong ideas that persisted. their persistence had more to do with cultural norms (things like white people being smugly convinced of their own superiority). most of them eventually came out in the wash. for example, the notion that you could tell all about a person by the bumps on their skull. there were many attempts to make evolution progressive in the sense that the 'great chain of being' is, mainly because that flatters H. sapiens (us). and eugenics... another bad idea.

These are so different in scale as to not be equivalent in principle, IMO. White superiority was a cultural norm, not a scientific one. Phrenology never influenced government policy (well hopefully not, anyway) or diplomacy. On the other hand, AGW has been been a growing concern for decades, across the scientific world and even into the political, diplomatic and industrial world. Nothing like the Bali Conference has ever resulted from a scientific theory.

one that's less controversial but may or may not turn out to be a "fad" (perhaps an unfair characterization, especially considering the stuff i just listed) is string theory. i don't understand string theory AT ALL but i've talked to some physicists who've grumbled about it not being tested and all. so the string theory one is just gossip really.

As I understand it, string theory might simply be a way of modelling any physical system, which couldn't tell us much about this physical system we fondly call "Home".

but hopefully, you get the idea: idea take hold, and are widely accepted even by credible scientists that wash out in the long run (Couvier apparently bought into the skull measurement nonsense).

It's my opinion that we've had the long-run and the AGW consensus is going stronger than ever. Someone once said "Outdated ideas aren't abandoned, it's just that those who teach them die off". When you look at sceptical scientific papers I suggest you check out the age of the lead author.

i did have that impression, more or less from the start, yes.

When I claim my "Told you so!", can I use you as a reference :)?
 
How does the quantity of infrared radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere directly from the sun compare to the resultant, reflected infrared radiation reemitted from the Earth?

How much would the infrared radiation coming directly from the sun contribute to the warming of the Earth if there was no secondary infrared reflected back from the atmosphere?

Wouldn't the build-up of 'greenhouse' gases reflect a tremendous amount of incident infrared radiation, and would this help counter the greenhouse effect to some degree?

There's no reflection involved. That would be like saying your bank account "reflects" your salary to your creditors.

The vast majority of the energy coming in is in the visible band, far from infra-red. All of the energy going out is in the infra-red - the planet isn't warm enough to glow. That's why the greenhouse effect is so influential, and why messing with it is not a good idea. In a nutshell.

Naturally, we messed with it anyway.
 
How does the quantity of infrared radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere directly from the sun compare to the resultant, reflected infrared radiation reemitted from the Earth?

How much would the infrared radiation coming directly from the sun contribute to the warming of the Earth if there was no secondary infrared reflected back from the atmosphere?

Wouldn't the build-up of 'greenhouse' gases reflect a tremendous amount of incident infrared radiation, and would this help counter the greenhouse effect to some degree?

That is where the 'greenhouse' part comes into it. The radiation coming in is short wavelength, which is transparent to CO2. The radiation going out is long wavelength, which is not transparent.
 
Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

I want to see a recent paper that proves the human heart exists. None of this old stuff.

If you want, you can do your own experiment. It looks pretty easy to set up.
 
Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

We know about the 1861 experiments because they were the first. The subsequent reproductions and refinements we don't know so much about; there are the HITRAN measurements from the 40's, of course, we all know about them, but there will have been more. For instance, Angstrom's lab did some lab work in the 20's and concluded that CO2 was already at saturation level (the experiment turned out to be conceptually flawed).

Venus's atmosphere answers to the same physical laws as ours does. Think of it as a pro bono experiment.
 
I want to see a recent paper that proves the human heart exists.

:D

None of this old stuff.

It's been around for a long time, and it's still not getting old.

If you want, you can do your own experiment. It looks pretty easy to set up.

Or he could get out more and observe the experiment going on all around us. It's freely available, after all. You don't even need an internet connection.
 
So this seems to indicate that if we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide from 0.037% to 100%, an increase of about 3000x, that the temperature goes up 5 degrees C?

In twenty minutes? Pretty much.

At 100% CO2 there's 0% water-vapour. As a model of a real atmosphere it kinda sucks. But that's not what the experiment is about. The real atmosphere is in the other jar, as a control.

By the way, it's not the multiplier but the doublings that you should count. Something to do with logarithms, as I recall.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom